Posted on 11/04/2007 6:37:35 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
I had said Fred Thompson could do him a lot of good if he passed “the Russert primary” with flying colors.
His campaign had been dismissing the Washington press corps, and implicitly running against the media, refusing to do the things candidates traditionally do (enter early, do five events a day, appear at the New Hampshire debate instead of the Tonight Show). But every once in a while a Washington media institution really does matter, and Meet the Press is one of them. Simply because Tim Russert, without commercial interruption, will throw hardballs and curveballs for a solid half hour, and standard delaying tactics won’t work. Also, his research staff can find every awkward quote from 1974 that every candidate dreads. Generally, a candidate who can handle Meet the Press well can handle just about any other live interview.
This morning I had caught a brief snippet – his discussion of Iraq - and thought he was striking out. I thought the reference to “generals we respect” was so odd, I wondered if he had forgotten David Petraeus’s name.
Having just watched it on the DVR, I thought it was a very, very solid performance. Ground rule double.
My initial shallow thought was that Thompson still looks a bit on the gaunt side. Then, during the interview:
“You’ve lost a lot of weight. Is it health related?”
“Coming from you, Tim, I’ll take that as a compliment.” Ouch. Thompson says no, it’s not health related, it’s just that his wife has him on a diet to watch his cholesterol. He says he had additional tests for his Lymphoma in September and was the results were all clear.
Every once in a while Thompson slipped up - I think he suggested that oil was selling at “nah-eight hundred dollars a barrel”, and I’m wary of his quoted statistic that car bombs in Iraq are down 80 percent – but overall, Thompson was measured, modest, serious, and completely at ease. After a couple of debates, it’s odd to watch a man not trying to squeeze his talking points into an answer, and instead speaking in paragraphs, conversational and informed.
Jen Rubin wrote, “He does not answer questions linearly with a direct answer to the question but rather talks about the subject matter. Some find this thoughtful and other think he is vamping and unfocused.” His talk on Iran was a perfect example, in that Thompson’s position isn’t terribly different from the rest of the field – he doesn’t want to use force, but he’ll keep that option open - but as he talks at length about the risks and benefits and factors that would go into a military strike, the audience, I think, will feel reassuring that if Thompson needs to face that decision, he will have weighed each option carefully.
That voice is fatherly, reassuring, calm. The contrast to Hillary couldn’t be sharper.
I’m going to say ‘well-briefed,’ but I know that will just spur one of the Thompson Associates to call me to tell me that’s not a sign of others briefing him, that’s a sign of Thompson’s own reading and study of the issues.
I was about to say that he was almost too conversational, that he could have used one quip or pithy summation at his views, and then, finally, at the tail end of his question on Schiavo, he summed up, “the less government, the better.”
I’m hearing that David Brody listened to the section on abortion and Thompson’s expression of federalism in this area, and has concluded, “all he needs now is to buy the gun that shoots him in the foot.” Look, if Fred Thompson isn’t pro-life enough for social conservatives, then nobody short of Mike Huckabee is. If Huckabee gets the nomination, great, I’d love to see Hillary Clinton go up against the Republican mirror-image of her husband’s rhetorical skills. But it feels like the past few months have been an escalating series of vetoes from various factions within the GOP. I’ve seen more amiable compromises on the United Nations Security Council.
Let me lay it out for every Republican primary voter. You support the guy you want, you rally for him, you write some checks, you vote in the primaries… and maybe your guy wins, maybe he loses. If the guy who beats your guy is half a loaf, you shrug your shoulders, hope your guy is his running mate, and get ready for the general. Life goes on.
Fred will be “evaluated” in the primaries. I don’t give a hoot in heck what Tim Russert thinks. He’s just one vote, if he bothers. My subdivision has about 600 votes!
I love this statement:
“Let me lay it out for every Republican primary voter. You support the guy you want, you rally for him, you write some checks, you vote in the primaries… and maybe your guy wins, maybe he loses. If the guy who beats your guy is half a loaf, you shrug your shoulders, hope your guy is his running mate, and get ready for the general. Life goes on.”
Would that all FReepers who love their country would adopt this common-sense approach this election year.
While that is technically true; that’s like saying that Rush Limbaugh “has a little radio show” or that Mitt and Rudy are “slightly” to the left of Hillary Clinton.
No. Reagan vs Carter.
“If the guy who beats your guy is half a loaf, you shrug your shoulders, hope your guy is his running mate, and get ready for the general. Life goes on.”
Would that all FReepers who love their country would adopt this common-sense approach this election year.
them.”
I haven’t heard anyone disputing this philosophy. If the eventually nominee is, as the quote says, worth half a loaf, I’m sure Freepers will rally behind him.
C'est la vie! (Or is it "c'est le mort"?)
I thought the reference to “generals we respect” was so odd, I wondered if he had forgotten David Petraeus’s name.I watched the whole interview and I thought "generals we respect" was completely in context with Fred's train of thought. Petraeus isn't the only general in Iraq and the left has been telling us that they are all untrustworthy. I think the writer is laboring a minor point to prove he can be as "incisive" as the liberals.
I thought Fred was excellent in the interview, thoughtful and in control.
I fear that sometimes "conservative" writers have to show their "credentials" to their drinking pals in the DC bars... and this might be a case in point.
“If the guy who beats your guy is half a loaf, you shrug your shoulders, hope your guy is his running mate, and get ready for the general.”
So true. This talk of third party stuff is crazy.
That’s a great analogy! Clinton vs. Thompson looks like Mondale vs. Reagan.
How much interaction did Hillary and Fred have during the Watergate investigation? Anybody know? Are they old adversaries?
Actually Fred’s postion on this issue is the one I have held for years. Naturally, I think it is logical, sensible, and defensible.
I really like the way Fred put it; something to the effect that people are free to enact laws that even Fred Thompson doesn’t like. Speaking for myself, there are PLENTY of laws that legislatures have enacted that I don’t like.
What you and folks like you need to reconcile yourselves to is that we Americans don’t live in a dictatorship, and what’s more, we don’t want to. All an individual can do is to be just and well-considered in his own time. Fred has complied a 100% pro-life voting record. Fred has clearly described his own views on abortion, and pre-natal life.
He also believes in the power of state legislatures to act on behalf of the people of their states to enact laws that he does not approve of.
Or that you don’t approve of. That seems to be your big beef. I’d suggest that you might consider that you are only one of 200 million plus. You don’t get to decide things all by yourself.
Neither does a President, even one that might be named Fred Thompson.
There will possibly be 2 or even 3 more vacancies on the Supreme Court within the next 8 years. This is the opportunity Conservatives have been waiting for. Our Country is in great peril if the moral decay continues downhill. The Court did this to our country with Roe vs. Wade and the Court can reverse their decision just as easily by overturning this horrid ruling.
The one thing no Court or President can do is bring back the 50 million babies taken under the banner of "Choice." Live with that number in your head when you remember which of these candidates has always been for "Life." Rudy, certainly not, Mitt, today, but what about tomorrow? Huckabee, yes, but a social Conservative he is NOT! He, like Hillary, would turn our Country into a nanny state.
It would require a "willing suspension of disbelief" to conclude that any democRAT would be in any way beneficial to our Country.
Fred Thompson looked very presidential today. He set the pace from the beginning, and Russert did not bully him. It will be a very good day when we get to see Fred vs. Hillary at a one on one debate.
You missed the relevance of the thread. I don’t think you read it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.